The City Is Our Studio

“Begin Again”  —  movie review
Today’s review is for the 2013 musical-drama “Begin Again“.  The movie stars Keira Knightley as Gretta James, a songwriter who has recently broken up with her boyfriend, Adam Levine as Dave Kohl, Gretta’s ex-boyfriend and a recently “hit” musician who cheats on Gretta, Mark Ruffalo as Dan Mulligan, a music producer who “discovers” Gretta in a dive-bar on an open mic night, Catherine Keener as Miriam Hart, Dan’s estranged wife – who cheated on him, (sensing a pattern here?), Hailee Steinfeld as Violet Mulligan, Dan and Miriam’s teenage daughter, James Corden as Steve, Gretta’s best friend from England, who has also moved to New York City to seek his fortune, CeeLo Green as Troublegum, a successful rapper who was discovered by Dan and who supports / funds Gretta’s (and Dan’s) album, and Mos Def (credited as Yasiin Bey) as Saul, Dan’s long-time business partner, who has pushed Dan out of their business because he (Dan) turned into an alcoholic flake.
The movie starts with an interesting (but confusing) sequence of Gretta singing and then flashes back to Dan hearing her sing.  This produces the most interesting (to me) scene in the movie where instruments begin to play themselves (much like the mop-cleaning-the-laboratory scene in “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice“) and we get a feeling for what a “gifted” music producer must hear / feel when he is helping to create a “sound” / song.  I’d never seen this done this way before.  Normally, we see producers sliding knobs on a big panel and voila – a hit single.  This was (to me) a truer window into creativity.
Anyway, Gretta and Dan agree to make an album in NYC and most of the rest of the movie revolves around that.  And, it works!  The characters are fleshed out and there is a progression / growth across Dan, Gretta, Miriam (the wife), Dave (the cheating boyfriend), Violet (Dan’s daughter) and Steve (though he’s more in the background).  Spoiler Alert:  the movie ends with one person forgiving an “ex” and starting over together, and one person moving on and starting over on their own.  Hence, “Begin Again“.
So, I already said the movie worked for me.  The two other questions I normally ask / answer are: Was it any good?  And, was it entertaining?  The answer to both is yes.  I will say, I’m not a big Adam Levine fan.  I’ve seen him as some kind of music coach on TV and I guess he used to be the lead singer in a band at some point.  In any case, while his acting was okay, I didn’t think much of his singing performance(s).  Truth be told, I was surprised by Keira’s singing, which was much better than I thought it was going to be.  Not that I would ever pay money to hear her sing on an album, but as part of the movie performance, I thought she was pretty good.  I will add I felt Knightly looks (sadly) a bit anorexic in this film.  I don’t know if it was “just” makeup or if it was really her, but while she is almost always slim, her cheeks were positively hollow in a few closeups.  It was more frightening than attractive (IMHO).  Again, nothing to do with acting or talent, just a comment…
I thought Ruffalo basically steals the movie.  He carried the weight and most of the humor of the movie and he did it well.  Between his roles as the Hulk and some of the other films I’ve seen him in, I’m really becoming a fan.  Steinfeld (the actor who played the daughter) and CeeLo Green were both very good in their respective roles, too.
Final recommendation:  Strong.  A little bit of full disclosure here: I re-watched the BBC and movie version of “Pride & Prejudice” and was discussing Keira Knightley with my sister over the weekend.  I’m trying to get her to read the novel.  She said how much she loves Knightley and that this (“Begin Again“) is one of her favorite movies of all time.  We both agreed about the bar / music “imagination” scene being great and I told her: “Now I have to go back and re-watch the movie.”  The movie is rated “R” for language, but I did not find it egregiously so nor particularly offensive.
Dear Readers:  My apologies for not following up with a review (here) after my initial viewing last year.  To tell the truth, over the last 18 months, I’ve probably watched over 100 movies which I’ve not reviewed due to “life getting in the way.”  That’s my excuse, and I’m sticking to it…  I guess I’ll just have to re-watch them and get on with the reviews.  (Darn!)
.
On This Day In:
2019	The Opening Step
	Day 17/18: That Didn’t Take Long
2018	I’ll Trade You…
2017	Luv Me Some Meat Loaf
2016	Unless Your Name Is #AmnestyDon
2015	A Tentative First Step
2014	Making People
2013	On Reading Books
2012	On America
2011	Shiver, Me Timbers!
2010	Fiduciary Breakdown

Read Full Post »

Cut To The Chase

“Bullitt” (1968)  —  movie review
Today’s review is for the 1968 cop movie “Bullitt“, starring Steve McQueen in the title role as homicide Lieutenant Frank Bullitt.  The film also stars Jacqueline Bisset as Cathy (the girlfriend), Don Gordon as the partner (homicide Detective Delgetti), Robert Vaughn as US Senator Walter Chalmers, Simon Oakland as the gruff voiced boss (Captain Sam Bennett) and (in an early role) Robert Duvall as Weissberg (a cab driver).  There’s also a bunch of bad guys (who cares).
The basic plot is that some guy is running from the mob in Chicago.  He flees to San Francisco.  He is “made” by a doorman at a hotel and the mob sends a couple of professional contract hitmen to kill the runner.  We are introduced to the star and his partner.  Bullitt meets a big money / sleazy politician (Vaugh / Chalmers) and is assigned to protect a witness over the weekend until a Senate hearing on Monday.  The witness is (of course) the runner.
The protection goes south and the witness and the cop protecting him are shot.  The witness (ultimately) fatally.  Bullitt smells a rat and bends the rules to keep the case open.  Blah, blah, blah…  BIG car chase – for which the movie is FAMOUS.  The two killers are dead, but Bullitt feels the case still stinks and continues to work it (this time, with permission).
Blah, blah, blah…  Bullitt chases and kills the runner at the airport.  The END.
OK.  There are really only three reasons to see this film:  1) you are interested in seeing police movies from 50+ years ago.  2) you really are interested in checking out “Mr. Cool” aka Steve McQueen.  And,  3) the CHASE.  Did I mention the “chase” is over ten(10) minutes long and “visually” covers most of San Francisco?  No, in reality the areas filmed are not really contiguous, but what the heck…  IT is a GREAT chase scene!!
Final recommendation:  strong recommendation.  This is considered a classic movie JUST because of the lead (McQueen) and the car chase, so normally I’d give it a “highly to must see” recommendation, but it’s really not that good a movie.  To me, the plot doesn’t make a lot of sense (even if it goes out of the way to hit you with plot checkpoints) and it is particularly unsatisfying.  The “real” bad guy in the movie is Senator Chalmers and nothing happens to him.  So, loose threads and no resolution.
Why “strong” then?  I like Steve McQueen as a big star in a number of films from when I was growing up, not the least of which are: “The Magnificent Seven” and “The Great Escape“.  And then, of course, there is “The Chase“.  Just as a bit of personal trivia / nostalgia, shortly after the movie, one of our local TV news stations shut down the block I was living on (a big hill in SF) and recreated the chase with one of their reporter cars jumping the intersections to “follow the news”.  It was cool to see our house on TV for months as this commercial was rebroadcast.  And, finally, if you watch this film, it’s easy to see where “Dirty Harry” (1971) comes from.
So, come for the “cool” and stay for the CHASE!
.
On This Day In:
2019	True Piety
2018	I Would, Too (A music-video for all)
2017	100th Day (of the Trump Presidency)
	Both Unlucky
2016	Or Blog
2015	Stretched Today?
2014	Outta Here
2013	Getting Words Right
2012	There’s A New Dog In Town
	Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is
2011	A Conservative Is…

Read Full Post »

Feeling Age

“The Age Of Adaline” (2015)  —  movie review
This movie is a SciFi-Fantasy / Drama / Romance movie starring:  Blake Lively as Adaline Bowman;  Michiel Huisman as Ellis Jones;  Harrison Ford as William Jones (Ellis’ father and 1960’s lover of Adaline);  Kathy Baker as Kathy Jones (Ellis’ mother);  and, Ellen Burstyn as Flemming Bowman (Adaline’s daughter).
Adaline is born on New Year’s Day in 1908.  She grows up, marries, becomes widowed and is then in a car crash / lightening strike which she survives (altered) with the gift of immortality.  She is stuck at 29 years old for another 80 (odd) years.  In order to avoid discovery, she moves every few years, changes her name and avoids close relationships.  Meanwhile, her daughter – Flemming – grows up and eventually ages into an old woman.
Shoot to the present (2015) and Adaline (now called Jenny) attends a New Year’s Party and meets Ellis Jones.  Over the next few days they fall madly in love and blah, blah, blah – lots of Hallmark moments.
Ellis invites Jenny to meet his parents and “it’s a small world, after all”, Ellis’ father (William Jones) is a former flame of Jenny’s (Adaline’s) from 50 years ago.  More blah, blah, blah.  Adaline’s “true” identity is discovered by William.  Jenny / Adaline flees the house, is in a car accident, blah, blah, blah… Jenny / Adaline is saved and reverted to a “normal” (i.e. aging) person, … and happily ever after.
So, is this movie any good?  Does it work as a SciFi-Fantasy?  Does it work as a Drama / Romance?  To paraphrase “Gladiator“:  was I not entertained?  Yes.  Well, okay.  Yes.  And, yes.  SciFi-Fantasy doesn’t really have to make sense.  It just has to offer a reason to get from “A” to “B”.  It does.  And, then it gets you from “B” back to “A” at the end of the movie.  It doesn’t matter how realistic it (the science) is.  Only that they tried to give an explanation.
Drama / Romance?  Yes.  It’s a simple Hallmark – meet, fall in love, test of love, love wins out, happily ever after movie, and, I’m good with that.  I didn’t really know what to expect going in, but as these movies go, it wasn’t bad.  In fact, yes, I was entertained.  Yes, both Lively and Huisman are very attractive and good in their roles, but I particularly liked Ford, Baker and Burnstyn in their roles.  They sold, if not carried, the movie for me.
Final recommendation:  Strong recommendation.  Two young, beautiful people fall madly in love and live happily ever after.  What’s not to like?  A final note:  there is a satellite shot that pans from outer space into California, then the Bay Area, then San Francisco which I’ve dreamed of for decades.  It was nice to FINALLY see it in a movie!  I’d have given the movie a good review for that shot alone.
.
On This Day In:
2021	Strong Women Make Them Too
	Gather Moments
2020	Another Opportunity
	Stand Up, Shout Out
2019	Birthday Gifts For Our Daughter
	Feeling Age
2018	Seeking To Make A Difference
2017	Happy BD, Bec!
2016	BD Quotes
2015	Princess
2014	Optional
2013	Happy Birthday, Rebecca
2012	Be Not Old
	2012 National League Western Division Champions!!!
2011	What Kind Of Work Do You Do?
2010	Another Loser… And Come November

Read Full Post »

Austen Stalking

Continuing in my pursuit of viewing all things “Pride & Prejudice“, I offer two more tangential movie reviews:  “Pride & Prejudice & Zombies” and “Austenland” and a third made for TV series:  “Lost in Austen“.  The reviews are in the order I watched them, not in preference or year of release.  Because this post covers three “films”, it will be considerably longer than normal.  Feel free to skip it and come back another time if you’re not “into” P&P.
“Lost in Austen” (2008) – TV Series 4 part on YouTube
This is a four part TV mini-series for a privately owned (not-BBC) channel in England called ITV.  The movie is a rom-com adaptation of Jane Austen’s “Pride & Prejudice” book, but is really kind of a “Back to the Future” (back to reality?) feel.  Basically, the lead (Amanda Price, played by Jemima Rooper) is so in love with the book, she stumbles into it through a portal in her bathroom.  She retains all of her knowledge of the book and Elizabeth Bennet (played by Gemma Arterton) “replaces” her in our time.  Basically, what happens in a romance story if you know all the story but as soon as you join the story, the story is irrevocably altered.  Mostly, comedy (and romance) ensues.
The rest of the main characters are:  Elliot Cowan as Fitzwilliam Darcy, Tom Mison as Mr Bingley, Morven Christie as Jane Bennet, Tom Riley as George Wickham, Hugh Bonneville as Mr. Claude Bennet, and Alex Kingston as Mrs. Bennet.
Once you know the premise, the TV-series is 70-80% predictable.  Given that, I still enjoyed it.  Rooper is not brilliant, but she carries the load and does it more than adequately.  Cowan is not “my” idea of Mr. Darcy, but he’s not bad.  Strike that.  He is better than most.  He is stern and formal without being Hollywood handsome.  And then he comes out of the pond…  LoL!  Adequate is true with the rest of the cast with the exception of Bonneville.  For whatever reason (mostly “Downton Abbey“, I think), I really like him as an actor and I thought he is very good as Mr. Bennet adding depth which is not always in some of the other portrayals in other versions of P&P.
The series uses the characters from P&P and kind-of follows the novel’s plot, but has (and ends with) significant variance.  Final recommendation:  strong.  If you are a “P&P” fan, I think you’ll enjoy this series as an addition / alternate universe to Austen’s P&P.  If not, it is at least tolerable as rom-coms go.  I found it better than “tolerable”, but that may just be my taste.  If you are not a “P&P” or rom-com fan, why are you even bothering to read this review? (Just kidding…)
I watched this on YouTube for free and I would definitely consider buying it if it ever came out in my price range ($5).  Each episode is about 40-45 minutes, so you are looking at almost three hours of viewing commitment.
“Pride & Prejudice & Zombies” (2016)
I know that “everything” goes better with Zombies these days, but I really didn’t know what to expect before viewing this version of P&P.  I need to preface this review with a comment:  I am not a horror or slasher film watcher.  Mostly, I find them repetitive, boring, or offensive.  I stopped watching them about 1977 or so.  I very occasionally will touch base with one if it becomes a “societal” touchstone, but even then, it’s rare.  I have never seen a Jason, 13th, Halloween, Hellraiser, Saw or any of those series.  I have seen and do like some of the classics:  “Wolfman“, “Psycho“, “Jaws“, etc and I also enjoy “monster / SciFi” films:  “Predator“, “Alien“, “The Birds“.  I’m not sure why I like some and not others.  I guess it’s just me.
Anyway, this is actually a rom-slash / martial arts / action film.  It is a “take-off” on P&P, so I thought I’d give it a chance.
Lily James plays Elizabeth Bennet, Sam Riley plays Mr. Darcy, Lena Headey plays Lady Catherine de Bourgh, Matt Smith plays Mr. Collins, Jack Huston plays Mr. Wickham and Charles Dance plays Mr. Bennet.  I like Lily James and love Lena Heady.  James makes a surprisingly good martial artist actor.  I don’t know how much is actually James doing the fighting, but “her” portions looked great.  Headey plays her typically serious role, even when it’s in a ridiculous role, like this one.  (I love the eye-patch.)  Dr. Who, I mean Matt Smith is outstanding as the incompetent and obsequious Collins.  Riley is handsome and gallant enough as Darcy, but seems (to me) a bit too young (and movie handsome, not really ruggedly handsome).  He looks like he should be in a boy band instead of on a parapet killing zombies.  And, finally, I liked Dance as Mr. Bennet.  I haven’t cared for him as much in other roles (GOT and “The Imitation Game“), but I thought he fit in this role.
Between the two threads, P&P and the zombies, this movie is 90% predictable.  The 10% which was unpredictable was whether James, Headly and the other ladies could pull off the martial arts scenes.  They do and quite well, too!
As a P&P fan, my final recommendation is:  moderate to strong.  I liked the sets, the costumes and the martial art set pieces.  I enjoyed this movie as a different “parody / take” on P&P even though I didn’t care for any of the zombie portions of the film.  They were merely action figures inserted to give the main characters moving targets to slice and dice.  I watched this on my “On Demand” TV service.  I’m not sure if I enjoyed it enough to actually buy a copy if ever comes in to my price point (yeah, still $5).  Despite James and Headey, I’m not sure I’d pay for this P&P theme movie.  And the movie ends as a setup to a sequel (which I will probably miss).
Austenland (2013)
This movie is supposed to be a “rom-com” about a late-20’s young lady who visits a theme park dedicated to re-enacting Jane Austen period life, social settings and romance.  The problem is while there is romance, there is almost no comedy.
So, who’s in this movie? It stars Keri Russell as Jane Hayes (the Austen fanatic), J.J. Feild as Henry Nobley (kind of a Mr. Darcy who looks vaguely like Tom Hiddleston), Bret McKenzie as Martin (the love interest for Russell’s character in the park), Jennifer Coolidge as Miss Elizabeth Charming (I thinks she was meant to be the comedic character, but she is an offensive “rich, unread, ugly American” instead – but with a kind heart), Georgia King as Lady Amelia Heartwright (another offensive rich guest – also American), and Jane Seymour as Mrs. Wattlesbrook (the proprietor of the resort).  There are also a number of other characters who aren’t really worth bothering to mention.
Russell is a “girl-next-door” version of Michelle Pfeiffer.  To be honest, I thought Russell might be Pfeiffer’s daughter or much younger sister.  She is the second best thing in this movie.  Feild is the first.  He makes both an interesting Nobly (Mr. Darcy) and a likeable history teacher.  The only other “interesting” actor was Seymour playing a manipulative park director.  The camera (or director or makeup crew) was not kind to her in this film.  She looks old in her closeups – much more than the early 60’s she would have been when this was filmed / released.  And not, evil / craggy / old – just old.  Like I said, “interesting”.
Final recommendation:  moderate (at best).  I did like Russell and Feild and thought there was pretty good chemistry between them.  So, “rom” is the limit of this rom-com.  As a P&P fan, at least I can say I gave it a shot and watched it.
Thanks to any of you who made it all the way through this post / these reviews…
.
On This Day In:
2018	Dead Red
	You Ain’t Done Yet
2017	Just Because
2016	As Close As They Can Get
2015	And So I Blog
2014	Take Flight
2013	Contributing Joy
2012	More Than A Race
2011	Institutionalized Leadership

Read Full Post »

The Importance Of A Deadline

“An Interview With God”  (2018)  —  movie review
Today’s review is for the “religious” movie which ran in theaters for three days last year and which is currently appearing on Netflix:  “An Interview With God” starring David Strathairn as God and Brenton Thwaites as a religious reporter / journalist Paul Asher who works at a non-sectarian newspaper.  The other main characters are:  Yael Grobglas as Paul’s estranged wife:  Sarah Asher, Charlbi Dean as Sarah’s sister (Paul’s sister-in-law):  Grace, and Hill Harper as Paul’s boss:  Gary.  Paul is suffering a crisis in faith after having spent an extended period in Afghanistan covering the war while embedded with combat troops.  Paul is contacted and agrees to three half-hour interviews with someone who represents himself to be God.  The “GOD”.  The interview sessions are to be conducted over three days and at locations specified by God.
The movie was sponsored by a conservative Christian who also paid to have the movie released nation-wide in a limited number of theaters – hence the limited three day run.  Now, I did not know anything about the sponsor until after I’d seen the film and was doing research prior to writing this review.  I gather both factors (limited release and sponsorship) contributed to the fact there were very few reviews of the film by “mainstream” film reviewers.  I saw the movie preview last year, but never got to see the film in the cinema.  When I saw it was running on Netflix, I thought I’d give it a look-see because I like spiritual films as long as they don’t try to beat me over the head with religion.  This movie is definitively Judeo-Christian biased, but it is surprisingly more philosophical than “religious”.  That is, it raises philosophical issues about God and the real world, but it doesn’t really try to convert you Christianity (which surprised me a little).
Of the cast, Strathairn is relatively well known actor (Best Actor Oscar nomination for his Edward Murrow role in “Good Night, and Good Luck“.  I have also seen and enjoyed his performances in numerous other roles in films and on TV.  Thwaites is an Orlando Bloom look-alike, whom I gather is coming up through the Hollywood ranks as a heart-throb.  I know Harper from his TV role in the series:  “The Good Doctor” – and I like him in that series.  The two females are (were) unknown to me.  I felt all five actors gave very creditable performances in their respective roles.
It is difficult to say too much about the movie because to do so would be to give away plot twists and the movie has only recently come onto Netflix so it would be unfair to spoil the movie given its very limited release.  I will say it is a movie you have to both watch and listen to.  The few reviews I have seen seemed (to me) to miss a number of points which explained / clarified other portions of the movie.  Basically, they said:  “What was this or that about?”  My response:  “Did you watch the movie?”
So, is this a great movie?  No, but it is thought provoking.  Is it well written, acted, shot?  Yes.  Yes.  And, yes.  Is it a religious experience in and of itself?  Give me a break…  It’s just a movie.  Do I intend to watch it again?  Yes, as a matter of fact I do intend to and I’ve already spoken to two family members about it (recommending it to them).
Final recommendation:  Strong recommendation.  I like Strathairn’s acting and he’s good in this role.  I like thought provoking movies and this is one of those (for me anyway).  I tend to enjoy movies about faith and humanity and this deals with both.  At only about ninety minutes, this movie was actually a better investment in faith than attending Mass today.  As sacrilegious as that may sound, I can (in my own defense) only offer a poem excerpt:
God moves in a mysterious way
His wonders to perform;
He plants his footsteps in the sea,
And rides upon the storm.
…
Judge not the Lord by feeble sense,
But trust him for his grace;
Behind a frowning providence
He hides a smiling face.
From the poem:  “Light Shining Out of Darkness“, by William Cowper
You can find the entire poem here.
.
On This Day In:
2022	42
2021	Blessings Larger Than Life
	Tomorrow She Sails
2020	The Sun Came Out
	Not A Wink On Guard
2019	The Importance Of A Deadline
	Chaos Is Not Really A New Remedy
2018	History Will Judge Harshly
	Father Time, Perhaps?
2017	Odds Are
2016	Prayer, Too
2015	History, n.
2014	See It Sometime
2013	Precious Friend
2012	It Couldn’t Be Done
	Feeling Surrounded?
2011	Surprise!

Read Full Post »

Make Two Calls

Personal Ads:  “Got a problem?  Odds against you?  Call the Equalizer:  212 555 4200.“
Today’s reviews are for a movie and its sequel:  Equalizer (2014) and Equalizer 2 (2018)
Both movies star two time Academy Award winning actor Denzel Washington as the lead character: Robert McCall.  The character and stories are based on a moderately successful TV show from the mid / late 1980’s of the same name starring Edward Woodward as McCall.  McCall is basically a “hero for hire” and the show is pretty similar to another TV series I enjoyed from the same period called “Stingray” (see my review of that TV series here).  The main difference is McCall never really seems to ask for a payment, whereas “Stingray” asked for a favor some time in the future.  Anyway, in this version, instead of a geriatric Brit playing McCall, we have a geriatric American.
Equalizer (2014)  —  movie review
This movie is rated “R” for violence, language and implied sex.  Basically we have a normal looking man who has a history as spy / detective / electronics expert and martial artist.  He is “retired” from his official duties at “The Agency” by faking his death.  Whenever he sees someone being hurt or taken advantage of unfairly, he exacts his sense of justice on the bad guy.  He says he usually gives them a chance to do the right thing (mostly they don’t) and if not, well, they don’t usually live to regret it.
In this movie, McCall makes friends with a young hooker who is beaten and nearly killed by her pimp.  The pimp is part of a Russian gang, so McCall ends up having to bring down the gang, too.  There are lots of great fight choreography – particularly a scene which replays in slow motion.  On watching it, I was reminded of a similar “replay” technique / scene used in “The Last Samurai“, another action movie I also enjoyed.  The scene works because it demonstrates the “temporal shift” it is said happens to highly trained and skilled warriors / athletes in which they say time slows down for them as they fight / perform.  Unless you have actually been in that “zone”, it (the feeling) is hard to relate to, but once you have experienced it, you find an enjoyable sense of déjà vu when you see the feeling in film.  At least I always seem to.
If you are a fan of violent action movies (and I can be), you will enjoy this movie because it is literally a string of increasingly violent encounters tied together by a thread of a plot.  It works because Washington carries the hero’s role and the Russian baddie (Nicolai Itchenko played by Marton Paul Csokas) is equally believable.  As an aside, there is also a scene in which a personal item is stolen from a co-worker of McCall.  The item is recovered and McCall is seen wiping down and replacing a hammer at the hardware store shelf display.  There is no “action” at all, but you know the robber has just had a very bad day.
Final Recommendation:  strong recommendation.  While the story is almost unbelievable, the hero and the bad guy both make the movie an enjoyable action film.  It is violent and not appropriate for pre-teens.
Equalizer 2 (2018)  —  movie review
Okay, let’s get this out of the way:  “Denzel doesn’t do sequels…”  What we have here is Denzel Washington in his first career sequel reprising his role as Robert McCall:  a guy who goes around helping others and righting wrongs.  I don’t mean stopping jay-walkers and litterbugs;  I mean Russian gangsters (in Equalizer 1) and here (in the sequel) rogue killers who work both sides of the political fence.  When an “Agency” asset is killed, a former top analyst is sent to make sure it wasn’t a “hit”.  When she gets wacked, something smells fishy in Denmark (actually Brussels).  Because the lady is a lifelong friend of McCall, he must avenge her death.  Oh, and he’s upset because he will only get to kill them once.
The main bad guy in this movie is Dave York (played by Pedro Pascal), who worked for and with McCall before McCall’s staged death.  York was not aware McCall is still alive and he and the rest of McCall’s “team” go private after McCall’s death.  Anyway, the team kill a bunch of people on assignment and then to tidy up loose ends and there is a big battle at the end which (of course) pits McCall against the team.  After tidying up their loose ends McCall gets asked:  “Who are you Mr. McCall?”
Final recommendation:  Moderate to strong.  Again, another violent movie…  The sequel is just not quite as good as the first.  Yeah, I know, big surprise.  It’s well shot and reasonably well acted, but the bad guy(s) just aren’t as threatening.  I guess they are a little too “clean” as professionals and lack the intensity of the actors playing the Russian gang in the first movie.  If you are a fan of Denzel or of this genre, you will enjoy this movie – both movies, actually.  I did.  But, it’s really not quite as good as “1”.   There is talk of a “EQ3″…  We’ll see…  I think I would prefer a re-boot / prequel with a younger actor.
.
On This Day In:
2022	Limited Knowledge And No Control
2021	Gifts
	Look Inside Your Heart
2020	A Strength Of Science
2019	A Higher Standard
	Make Two Calls
2018	Irreplaceable Sparks
2017	Saving For April 15th
2016	First Wish
2015	Tracing Shadows
2014	One Thing
2013	More Is Less
2012	The Screw-Up Gene

Read Full Post »

Two Jordans To Heaven

I like rom-coms and I like fantasy movies.  Today’s reviews are for two movies which combine the rom-com and the guardian angel (fantasy) genres:  “Here Comes Mr. Jordan” and “Heaven Can Wait“.
Here Comes Mr. Jordan  —  movie review
This movie came out in 1941 and (as far as I know) was one of the first movies where the idea of an angel or guardian angel featured as a prominent plot point in the film.  The movie stars Robert Montgomery as Joe Pendleton / Bruce Farnsworth (a boxer and the “hero”), Rita Johnson as Julia Farnsworth (Bruce’s wife and “bad-guy 1”), John Emery as Tony Abbott (Farnsworth’s personal secretary and “bad-guy 2”), James Gleason as Max Corkle (Joe’s friend / trainer / manager), Evelyn Keyes as Bette Logan (the love interest for Joe / Bruce), Edward Everett Horton as Messenger 7013 (the angel in training) and Claude Rains as Mr. Jordan (the main angel in charge).
The premise is a convoluted “love will find a way”, “angels make mistakes too”, and “our fates are predetermined but the details are flexible”.  Basically, a boxer dies before his championship fight because the angel takes his spirit out of his body to avoid the person suffering the pain of death.  But, somehow, the person (Joe) wasn’t supposed to die and so he needs to go back to earth to complete his destiny (becoming champ).  The problem is his friend (Max) has had his body cremated so there is no body to return Joe to.  The head angel (Mr. Jordan) assumes control of the case and places Joe in another body of someone physically suitable.  The “someone” is Bruce who has been recently killed by his wife and secretary.  Blah, blah, blah, laughs ensue;  the guilty are found out and love blossoms.  And, of course, Joe wins his title and lives happily ever after with Bette.
This is a black-and-white film which is overacted and simple to follow, but also genuinely funny and enduring.  I am quite certain I’d seen this movie in my youth, but I have no idea when it would have been.  I watched this with my wife, (who likes old movies but doesn’t normally like comedies,) and she both enjoyed it and actually laughed a couple of times.  You could knock me over with a feather…  Her reaction:  “This is the kind of movie I would have watched with my nana when I was young.”  Final recommendation:  strong.  While not intended to be a “period piece”, this certainly is one – and it’s a pretty good one on that alone.  Throw in the rom-com and you’ve got a movie worth watching with your family.
Heaven Can Wait  —  movie review
This movie came out in 1978 and is a pretty straight forward remake of the original with minor character changes.  The movie stars Warren Beatty as Joe Pendleton / Bruce Farnsworth (a American football quarterback and the “hero”), Dyan Cannon as Julia Farnsworth (Bruce’s wife and “bad-guy 1”), Charles Grodin as Tony Abbott (Farnsworth’s personal secretary and “bad-guy 2”), Jack Warden as Max Corkle (Joe’s friend / trainer), Julie Christie as Bette Logan (the love interest for Joe / Bruce), Buck Henry as “the Escort” (instead of “Messenger 7013” – the angel in training) and James Mason as Mr. Jordan (the main angel in charge).  I have no idea why two Brits were chosen to play the main angels in both films.  I think it was for the accent – to make them sound more heavenly.  (LOL)
The premise(s) remain a convoluted “love will find a way”, “angels make mistakes too”, and “our fates are predetermined but the details are flexible”.  Basically, a quarterback dies before his championship game (the Super Bowl) because the angel takes his spirit out of his body to avoid the person suffering the pain of death.  But, somehow, the person (Joe) wasn’t supposed to die and so he needs to go back to earth to complete his destiny (winning the Super Bowl).  The problem (again) is his friend (Max) has had his body cremated so there is no body to return Joe to.  The head angel (Mr. Jordan) assumes control of the case and places Joe in another body of someone physically suitable.  The “someone” is Bruce who has been recently killed by his wife and secretary.  Blah, blah, blah, laughs ensue;  the guilty are found out and love blossoms.  And, of course, Joe wins his Super Bowl and lives happily ever after with Bette.
This is a color film which is somewhat overacted (particularly by Cannon and Grodin – for laughs) and not as funny as the original (Warden isn’t as funny as Gleason), but it was nominated for seven Oscars (including Best Actor and Best Picture) and won one (not one of the main Oscars).  I saw this movie in my youth during its original release.  I did not watch this version with my wife who felt she didn’t want to “spoil” the memory of the original by watching the updated version.  Final recommendation:  strong.  While not quite up to the original, it’s a pretty good remake.  And, again, a family film.
.
On This Day In:
2021	Our Common Humanity
	A History Story
2020	At The Very Least Smile More
	Your Touch
2019	Still Working On Both
2018	Two Jordans To Heaven
	Speaking Of #45
2017	All Greek To Me
2016	Judgment
2015	I Love Bacon, Too
2014	The Wee Bit
2013	Reading Rules
2012	Cadet Prayer
2011	Easy To Tell
2010	A NEW Lion In The Senate (Channeling Mr. Smith)
	Inception Redux
	A Quick Hit Of Stats

Read Full Post »

Favorite Westerns

Once Upon A Time In The West (1968)  —  movie review
OUATITW is a “classic” style “spaghetti” western directed by Sergio Leone who made Clint Eastwood a movie star with his “Man With No Name” trilogy.  This movie stars Henry Fonda in a role / type reversal as the movie’s main bad guy, a killer called “Frank”.  The movie includes Claudia Cardinale as Jill McBain – a New Orleans prostitute who comes out west after marrying a dirt farmer who has the foresight to buy land with the only available water in 200 miles; Jason Robards as Manuel “Cheyenne” Gutiérrez – a bandit who seems to get into and out of trouble for most of the movie, (kind of the good hearted bad guy);  Charles Bronson, known only as “Harmonica” – not really a good guy, but the closest thing this movie has to one as he kills all the bad guys;  and Gabriele Ferzetti as Mr. Morton – the background bad guy who hires Frank to force Jill McBain off the land, so he can take ownership.
I borrowed this DVD from my brother who claims it is one of his favorite Western genre movies of all time.  He also claims the Western genre is his favorite genre of all.  I don’t remember ever seeing this movie, so I brought it home for a look see…
My reaction:  it’s good, but not great.  It’s long and I found it a bit confusing.  The movie tries to use flashbacks to explain things (particularly near the end), but it doesn’t do it well.  My brother says he remembers seeing a different version which has an additional twenty minutes and explains everything better.  Maybe, but I can only watch what’s before me…
So, does Fonda make a good baddie?  Does Robards play a convincing Mexican?  Does Bronson play a good Eastwood?  Is this a good Western?  Is this a good movie?  Three yeses and two noes.
Henry Fonda makes a surprisingly good “evil killer”.  He plays it straight and it works.  He’s believable.  Robards plays a terrible Mexican.  I didn’t even realize he WAS a Mexican.  I just thought Cheyenne was a nickname.  Even saying that, Robards plays a surprisingly great “good hearted bad guy”.  I like him.  He was threatening and likable (almost funny) at the same time.  Charles Bronson CANNOT play Clint Eastwood.  While the role was clearly written for Eastwood, Charles is just okay in it.  Not great, but okay.  And, finally, Claudia Cardinale is gorgeous.  I’ve heard her name before, but cannot honestly say I’ve ever seen her in any movies – even movies I’ve seen (LOL).  No, she is not believable in this role, but I think it would have been a tough role for any actress to pull off.  Having said this, she is good enough in the role it makes me want to see her in some of her other performances to see if she can act or if she’s just another pretty face who was okay in this role.
Is this a good Western and / or a good movie?  Yes.  To both.  Although it is LONG and a bit slow in parts, it is trying to tell a story and it mostly accomplishes that – and that (both, actually) in itself is pretty unusual for most Westerns.  I like gritty Westerns and this is one of those.  I like movies which have a story to tell and this one does.  I like movies where some of the characters evolve and some calcify, because that’s how people react in real life – and this movie shows this.  So, yeah, all in all it’s a good Western and a good movie.  It’s not Oscar material, but it’s an enjoyable watch.
Final recommendation:  Strong to highly recommended.  It’s no where near my favorite Western, but it’s a good movie and I really liked the good guy actor (Fonda) in this type reversal.
.
On This Day In:
2021	20 / 20 History Lessons
	I Waited
2020	The Blind Squirrel And The Suppression Of Uncomfortable Ideas
	It’ll Start Getting Cooler. You Just Watch.
2019	Future Tools
	Three Swedish Girls
2018	Four Loves
	Favorite Westerns
2017	Faith In Science
2016	What The World Calls
2015	Say What?
2014	Start Today
2013	Fly!!
2012	Greater Love
2011	Before

Read Full Post »

Time To Meet God

Sicario (2015) — movie review
Today’s review is for the drug cartel crime fighting thriller, Sicario,  released a few years ago and which has a sequel just wrapping up in theaters now.  The movie title translates to “hitman” according to the opening credits.  It stars:  Emily Blunt as FBI Agent Kate Macer;  Antonio Banderas — just kidding — Benicio del Toro as Alejandro Gillick;  Josh Brolin as CIA Agent Matt Graver and Daniel Kaluuya as Blunt’s FBI partner Reggie Wayne.  Gillick’s “character / role” is not entirely clear.  On the one hand, he is said to be an attorney who’s family is murdered by a drug cartel, and on the other had he is said to be a member of the Medellín cartel.  I think I would have to view the movie again to see which is true as multiple sources seem to disagree (Rotten Tomatos, IMDB, Wikipedia).  Really, he’s a combination of Paul Kersey (Death Wish) – vengeance / vigilante, John McClane (Die Hard) – one man against the gang / vigilante, and Frank Castle (Punisher) – super-efficient killer with multiple weapons / vigilante.
The basic plot is the CIA needs an FBI agent on a cross-departmental team to function on US soil.  Hence, they recruit Macer and Wayne to help “arrest” (i.e. track down and kill) some cartel leaders.  To do this, they pursue the cartel in both the US and Mexico.  Blah, blah, blah.  Shoot-em up.  Blah, blah, blah.  Feel sorry for Macer and Gillick.  Blah, blah, Gillick saves Macer.  Blah, blah, Gillick gets revenge.  Blah, blah, Macer let’s Gillick skate (to make a sequel).  Kind of a happy / unhappy ending…
So, is this a good movie?  Does it work as a thriller?  Is it realistic?  Yes.  Yes.  And, so-so.  I found the movie to be very interesting because it was the best depiction I’ve seen of night vision / thermal vision head gear.  The acting is solid and the characters are reasonably developed enough that you can start to feel for them.  The movie works quite well as a thriller.  The action starts strong with a pretty powerful (if gruesome) opening of the FBI breaking into a house full of dead bodies to arrest / kill gang members and free hostages and then it just goes from there.  Anyway, the Department of Justice wants to make a “bigger” difference in the drug war, so they join the CIA and DOD’s Delta Force to perform operations both in the US and in Mexico.  There are multiple action / set pieces and they work – in terms of both increasing theatrical tension and creating bonding of the law enforcement team (character development).
Is the movie realistic?  I do believe it’s realistic in terms of gang violence and military capability.  No.  I don’t believe it is realistic in the depiction of action.  The action happens the way we (as an audience) would like it to happen – person shot, person drops.  But, again, it’s only a movie, so I’m willing to cut Hollywood some slack.  They are trying to entertain us, not educate us.
The movie is rated:  “R” and this is deserved due to the graphic depiction of gang violence.  Having said this, it shies away from the most graphic violence of Gillick avenging his own family by killing the drug lord (and his family first, in front of him).  Today’s post title is a quote of the final words Gillick says to the gang / drug lord.
So, final recommendation:  strong.  The story is good.  The action and tension builds.  The characters / actors get developed during the film.  It has a satisfying (if not happy) ending.  With the proviso that it is not for the squeamish and is correctly rated as “R”, it is worth your time if you are into spy / crime / thriller / action movies.
.
On This Day In:
2017	Wealth Within
2016	Soaring
2015	Gone To The Library…
2014	Choose To Lead
2013	Not Sent Yet
2012	Wall-Crawler Reboot
	Learning To Count
	On Worshiping God
2011	Emancipated Differences
2010	A Little More Technology, Please…

Read Full Post »

Before The Fall – Cheat

Margin Call  (2011)  —  movie review
Today’s movie review is for a movie I originally saw parts of on YouTube and have been wanting to watch ever since.  It finally came down to $5 at Vudu, so I now have the rights to stream it anytime I want to.  This is not the same as “owning” a copy, but that’s a subject for another blog post.
This movie is an attempt to portray dramatically “something” like what “probably” happened at a number of banks, investment companies and other financial trading companies during the financial meltdown of 2008.  As such, the title (“term”) Margin Call is a bit of a misnomer.
A “margin call” can happen when something (anything) is purchased with “leverage”, ie. a loan, you only put up a portion of the perceived value of the item, AND promise that if the value of the item decreases by some amount agreed as part of the leveraged purchase, you will add more money.
For example:  You “buy” something with 10% of its value, so you have 90% leverage.  If the price goes up 10%, you make 100% of your money on the 10% of the value.  If, however, the price drops more than the agreed amount – which is always less than the amount you “invested”, you will get a call from the broker who arranged the leverage (loan of the the difference) and you will be asked for more money.  This is the “margin call”.  If you cannot bring more money to the table to answer the call, you lose your entire initial investment.
The above situation is NOT what is happening in the movie.  What is “described” in the movie appears to be temporary financial exposure caused by holding investments of undetermined value during a period of market volatility.  At least that is what I think they were describing.  Basically, they hold mortgage back securities of questionable value, and, for some reason not fully explained, must hold the securities for 30 days to establish the value.  However, due to market volatility during the hold period, the value of the securities can decrease below the call value and the amount on call would be greater than the total capital of the entire company BECAUSE the company is a leader and position setter in this market.  In fact (in the movie), this has happened multiple times in the prior two weeks, but the market recovered before the end of the day closing so (fortunately) calls were never issued.  But the potential exposure remains.
Anyway, the problem is – there is trouble in River City and it’s right now.  Eric Dale (played by Stanley Tucci) is a Risk Analyst at some big money firm.  (We never find out if it’s a bank or investment firm or what.)  He is fired and instead of “just” leaving, he passes on a file describing the problem to his junior, Peter Sullivan (played by Zachary Quinto).  Because he was educated as a “Rocket Scientist”, Peter figures out the problem and kicks the information upstairs to his new boss – Will Emerson (played by Paul Bettany).  Blah, blah, blah — same to Sam Rogers (played by Kevin Spacey) to Jared Cohen (played by Simon Baker) and Sarah Robertson (played by Demi Moore), until it finally reaches the big Kahuna:  John Tuld (played by Jeremy Irons).
The decision is made to clear the market and dump everything before the rest of the world discovers the questionable value of the securities.  The three rules for making money in investment:  Be First, Be Smarter, or Cheat.  While the dumping is technically not “cheating”, it is lying to their customers.  But, hey, survival of the fittest…
Does the movie work?  Is it interesting?  Is it realistic?  And, is it any good?  So-so.  Yes.  Yes.  And, so-so.  If you don’t have financial background, you will only “get” that this movie is about screwing the other guy before the collapse.  I found it interesting, particularly in contrast with “The Big Short“, another movie dealing with the 2008 bubble burst and the two “Wall Street” movies.  As I really wasn’t sure what the problem with the securities was, it was hard for me to decide if it was realistic there.  Was it an accurate portrayal of “screw the other guy and get ours first” attitude – 100% realistic.  So, is it a good movie?  Well, I enjoyed it, so I guess that means yes.  Even if I question the ethics of the results…
Final recommendation:  strong.  I doubt the average person will understand background “why” any more than I did.  I think the average person watching this will think:  “This is how the little guys get screwed by Wall Street”.  I think they’d be justified in thinking this.
One more note:  having personally been through several lay-offs (as a “survivor” and a victim), I found this portion of the movie to be VERY accurate as a depiction of corporate America.
.
On This Day In:
2017	Distant Goal
2016	More Lives
2015	Go Shopping More
2014	Say What?
2013	Accepting Beauty
2012	Transitional Choice To Ride The Wave
2011	Freedom Isn’t Always Perfect
	Just That Simple

Read Full Post »

Bourne Wicked Blonde

Atomic Blonde (2017)  —  movie review
Today’s movie examines what happens when marry the weak storyline of a James Bond spy movie with the visuals / fights of a Jason Bourne movie and throw in the violence / violence of a John Wick movie – all of which is based on a “graphic novel” (aka:  comic book).  And, of course, the “twist” is the main character is a female.  Charlize Theron is Lorraine Broughton (the lead British spy); James McAvoy (the young Professor X in the X-men movies) is David Percival (the Berlin station head / British agent), Eddie Marsan is Spyglass (the East German agent with information), John Goodman is Emmett Kurzfeld (the CIA agent), Toby Jones (the Hydra guy in the Avengers movies) is Eric Gray (Broughton’s boss), and Sofia Boutella (the bodyguard with killer legs from the Kingsman movie) is Delphine Lasalle a French agent.
So, it’s 1979 and the Berlin Wall is about to fall.  A list of all agents (French, British, German, etc.) is about to be sold to the highest bidder.  MI6 sends their best agent (Broughton / Theron) to get the job done – whatever the job needs to be.  Blah, blah, blah, lots of violence, blah, blah, blah, more fights / violence, blah, blah, a hint of lesbian sex, blah, blah, blah, more violence and a spy twist at the end.
Is it any good?  If you like the Daniel Craig / Bond’s or the Damon / Bourne or the Reeves / Wick movies, you will almost certainly enjoy this movie.  I do / have and I did.  Is it serious cinema?  It’s a comic book adaptation and suffers from all of the excessive survival issues of this action / spy / drama genre.  No one, male or female could survive all of this over the top fighting and still function.  Given that, the movie works.  It is entertaining for its “kick-some-butt” target demographic / audience.  And Theron surprised me as being able to carry off the role.  She is great and she definitely makes the movie in the same way Craig-Damon-Reeves carry their respective franchises.
Final recommendation:  strong.  This will not be a movie to everyone’s taste.  There is little to no humor, it is dark and violent, but it is consistent within the universe of its genre (graphic novel).  Although Theron’s character does her fair share of butt-kicking, if male on female violence bothers you, you will not enjoy this movie.  The movie is rated “R” for violence, language and brief nudity.
.
On This Day In:
2017	This Explains A Lot
2016	Me Too
2015	A Proper Price
2014	Well Hard
2013	Because I Can
	Eloquence, n.
2012	Why Bother?
2011	Peculiar Notions

Read Full Post »

Touching A Nerve

Still Mine (2012) — movie review
Today’s movie review is for the Canadian romantic drama:  “Still Mine“.  The movie is based on a true story of a farmer who runs afoul of the local building authorities who try to get him to build a cottage “to code.”  The man (in question) is a farmer trying to build a smaller house on his own land to accommodate his dementia-stricken wife.  The lead role:  Craig Morrison, is played by James Cromwell.  The wife: Irene Morrison, is played by Geneviève Bujold.  Both are excellent in their respective roles.
Basically, Morrison is a small farmer living in the country (on his own farmland) and he needs to downsize his living quarters from the farmhouse where he and his wife of 60+ years raised their 7 kids.  The farmhouse is a small house, but it is an upstairs / downstairs and Irene can no longer be trusted to walk up and down the steps (inside or outside).
What would you do for your spouse of 60 years?  Morrison’s answer is “anything”.  So he decides to build a cottage for them to live in.  … And, damn City Hall!
So, there are three main conflicts in the movie:  the age of the couple, the increasing dementia of the wife, and the pigheadedness of the elderly farmer who wants to help his spouse without the interference of the planning authorities.
The movie is touching.  It confronts the issues openly and – for what we see – it has a “happy” ending.  I doubt if the ending is “really” that happy, but the film gives that impression in it’s post-movie script.  In any case, I found the movie very moving.
Final recommendation:  strong recommendation.  I honestly don’t know what demographic this movie was intended for – older and fearful, I guess – but it was definitely a movie which made me think about my own future.  Not that my wife or I have dementia, but we are both just retired and “getting on”.  Ultimately, it is a simple love story which works as a movie.  I enjoyed it, even if I found it disturbing.
.
On This Day In:
2017	Did I See You In Chapter 13?
2016	As I Recall
2015	Less And More Irritation
2014	That Marvelous Feeling
2013	Exceptional
2012	A Wild And Crazy Believer
2011	A Lack Of Scarcity
	The Joy Of Prevention

Read Full Post »

London To The Hague

The Hitman’s Bodyguard (2017) — movie review
Today’s movie review is for last year’s comedy / action / drama:  “The Hitman’s Bodyguard“.  The movie stars Samuel Jackson as the “hitman” (Darius Kincaid) and Ryan Reynolds as the down-on-his-luck “bodyguard” (Michael Bryce).  The corresponding love interests are Elodie Yung as Amelia Roussel (Bryce’s girlfriend / Interpol Agent ) and Salma Hayek as Sonia Kincaid (the hitman’s wife).  The “bad guy” is Vladislav Dukhovich (played by Winston Churchill – I mean Gary Oldman).
So, the story is Dukhovich is on trial for crimes against humanity and Jackson has to testify against him in twenty-four hours or the bad guy walks.  Action, action, action.  Amelia calls the “only” one she can trust (her ex-boyfriend: Reynolds) to get the hitman to the court where he is to testify.  Action, action. action.  Blah, blah, blah – how I met my wife.  Action, action, action.  Blah, blah, blah – how I met my girlfriend.  Action, action, action.  Two guys become friends.  Action, action, action.  Bodyguard saves hitman, hitman punishes bad guy, and, wait for it…  Happily ever after.
Okay.  Is this a great movie?  No.  Is it a great or entertaining action / drama / comedy movie?  Yes, yes and yes.  I have NEVER thought of Jackson as a comedic actor.  He and Reynolds nail the comedy.  And the action.  Okay, maybe not the drama, but gimme a break…  This is simple entertainment, not great cinema.  The sub-text of this comment:  completely disregard physics, human endurance / survivability, and the ability of trained / experienced / professional mercenaries to shoot and hit the good-guys in any movie.
This is a VERY funny movie – but most of the humor is in the dialogue and dynamic between the two leads, so you have to watch AND listen to the movie.  (WHAT?  I have to pay attention?  Yes.  Sorry.  You do.)  Caution:  there is an excessive amount of foul language in this film.  It is not appropriate for anyone sensitive to obscene language (and therefore not appropriate for kids or young teens).  There is also a fair amount of graphic violence.  These both seem to be run of the mill in action movies these days, but both still deserve to be noted in cautions.
Final recommendation:  within the cautions provided above, I give this a strong recommendation.  I outright laughed a half dozen times and chuckled a bunch more.
.
On This Day In:
2017	At Least Twenty To Go
2016	A Sweet Smelling Blog Post
	Pre-Reacher
2015	Getting The Story Right
2014	Like Shells On The Shore
2013	More And Why
2012	How To Gain Effective Fire
2011	Patriot Act

Read Full Post »

Trust Me, Too

Today’s Special   (2009)  —  movie review
Yesterday I watched a very pleasant rom-com:  Today’s Special.  Aasif Mandvi stars as the main character “Samir”, who starts the movie as a sous chef at an upscale New York restaurant.  He becomes frustrated with his boss when passed over for a promotion and quits.   Samir’s dreams of studying French cooking in France are dashed (hey, a cooking pun) after his father has a heart attack and Samir must take over his family’s Indian restaurant, “Tandoori Palace” in Queens.  The only customers are Samir’s uncles sitting at a table playing cards.  Samir doesn’t know what to do because his knowledge of Indian cooking is nonexistent until he meets his “Mr. Miyagi” – in the person of larger than life gourmet chef and taxi driver “Akbar” played by Naseeruddin Shah.  (Who, by the way, steals almost every scene he’s in.)  Samir’s world is transformed by Akbar’s cooking lessons.  A pretty co-worker and Samir’s love interest, “Carrie”  played by Jess Weixler, doesn’t hurt, either.   The actor who plays Akbar (Shah), may be more familiar to some as Captain Nemo from “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen“.  I don’t recognize Weixler from anything else, but she was pleasant enough in this role to look for her in other future roles.
The movie also has two side stories:  the first is about Samir’s family and a brother lost in a car accident;  the second is about Samir’s mother trying to find him a bride.  I guess they are meant to add a bit of pathos and some insight into Indian family culture, but they end up kind of as filler…
There is very little which is new or original in this movie.  It is also extremely predictable.  But, who cares…  Sometimes you just want to watch a pleasant movie with a happy ending.  I watched this on Netflix and, while I may never buy a copy, I’ll almost certainly watch it again.  If nothing else, than to watch Shah play Akbar.  Final recommendation:  strong recommendation!  A very pleasant (if unoriginal) rom-com.
.
On This Day In:
2021	Losing One’s Edge
	Can I Get An Up Front Seat?
2020	Are You Sure?
	Who Could It Be?
2019	Living Art
	Day 7: Week 1 – Mathematics
2018	Hey, #45: Are We Sick Of Winning, Yet?
	Day 40: Wrists
2017	Heart Vision
2016	A Labor Day / Pre-Election Hope
	Trust Me, Too
2015	Without Hope
	Things Known And Unknown
2014	A Wall Too High, A Bridge Too Far
2013	Glory = Danger
	Chicago Magic
	Feelin’ It
2012	How Did We Get Here?
2011	Labor Day Weekend Mishmash
	More, More, More

Read Full Post »

REDs

RED –  movie review
“RED” (2010) is a movie series / vehicle for a number of aging actors (primarily Bruce Willis, Helen Mirren, John Malkovich, Mary-Louise Parker and Brian Cox) to star in a “semi”-comedic action / adventure spy movie (based on a comic book series of the same name).  Cox is a Russian agent.  Mirren is British.  The rest are Americans (mostly CIA).  Parker plays the odd person out.  She is not a former (retired) spy.  She just falls into the series as Willis’ character love interest.  He just wants to see if he could have had a “normal” life.  Parker’s character turns out to be an adventure junkie (as she would be).  “RED” is an acronym for “Retired, Extremely Dangerous”, and is how each of the former spies’ personnel folders are labeled.
In this first movie, the bad guys are trying to kill Willis and his old team because … who really cares?  Blah, blah, blah…  Humor, gunfights, explosions and car chases later, the bad guy is killed and everyone lives happily ever after.  Well, all except for Morgan Freeman, who gets shot dead.  Yeah, he was former CIA too.  Apparently, his death didn’t really count for the series because they make a point of telling us that he’s due to die from kidney disease in 90 days.  This way, they don’t have to draw straws later in a suicide mission moment.
Does the movie work and is it entertaining?  Yes and yes.  The movie is basically, “Die Hard” with a team, so it’s hardly a stretching role for Willis, but he’s okay with it and, as a fan, I’m willing to buy into it too.  The best character in the movie is Malkovich as the paranoid / crazy ex-spy.  He knocks it out of the park and pretty much steals all of his scenes.  All in all, final recommendation:  strong recommendation.
RED 2 – movie review
“RED 2” (2013) more or less takes up where the first movie ended.  Plot:  more guys trying to kill Willis.  The team gets back together to locate and destroy a nuclear weapon placed in Moscow a couple of decades ago.  Once again, blah, blah, blah…  Humor, gunfights, explosions and car chases later, the bad guy is killed and everyone lives happily ever after.   Yes, there is the minor “thing” of a nuclear explosion just outside of London, but details, details…  Oh, yeah.  Did I mention this device was a “red mercury” warhead?  I guess somebody was a “new” Star Trek Nero (the bad guy / Romulan Captain) fan and they borrowed some of his “red matter”.
Again, does the movie work and is it entertaining?  Yes and yes.  The movie is basically, “Die Hard“(ish) with a team, so it’s hardly a stretching role for Willis, but he’s okay with it and, as a fan, I’m willing to buy into it too.  The best character in the movie is Malkovich as the paranoid / crazy ex-spy.  He knocks it out of the park and pretty much steals all of his scenes.  This time, Mirren is a much closer second best.  All in all, final recommendation: strong recommendation.  (And, yes I know that was a “cut-n-paste” from above, but, hey, the movie was too.)  Still, like I said, “Strong Recommendation”.  I am a fan of the genre and of the actors, so I’ll probably like numbers 3 and 4 too, when they finally come out.
.
On This Day In:
2021	A Little Forgetfulness
	Thoughts While Driving To Work
2020	Making Potential Come True
	Predating / Predicting Nerdhood
2019	Duration Unknown
	Day 6: Almost There
2018	Just Trying To Be Me
	Day 39: Half This Game Is 90% Mental
2017	A Letter To 45
	Some Small Place
2016	REDs
2015	Cities
2014	Still
2013	Dare = Hope
2012	Check My Math
2011	Just Asking

Read Full Post »